Shaheen Bagh verdict: SC refuses plea for clarification, says ‘the judgment speaks for itself’

Top court had on October 20 ruled that roads and public spaces can’t be blocked indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone

Demonstrators attend a protest in Shaheen Bagh. Reuters file

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, January 24

The Supreme Court on Monday turned down a petition urging it to clarify its Shaheen Bagh verdict, saying no clarification was needed as the judgment spoke for itself.

“The issue is over, why is it listed? What’s the clarification sought I don’t understand. There’s no clarification required. The whole issue is over. Sorry. No clarification of a judgment. The judgment speaks for itself. Dismissed,” a Bench led by Justice SK Kaul said rejecting the plea filed by Syed Bahadur Abbas Naqvi – an intervenor in the case.

“We have dismissed this application, there’s no need for clarification, judgment has been passed, such an application is not maintainable, we are not going to entertain such applications in disposed of matters,” the Bench said.

Maintaining that “democracy and dissent go hand in hand”, the Supreme Court had on October 20 ruled that roads and public spaces can’t be blocked indefinitely and demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone.

Deciding petitions seeking removal of protesters against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) from Shaheen Bagh in Delhi, a three-judge Bench headed by Justice SK Kaul had said, “We have…no hesitation in concluding that such kind of occupation of public ways, whether at the site in question or anywhere else for protests is not acceptable and the administration ought to take action to keep the areas clear of encroachments or obstructions.”

On February 13 last year, the Supreme Court had dismissed a petition seeking review of its Shaheen Bagh verdict.

“The right to protest cannot be anytime and everywhere. There may be some spontaneous protests but in case of prolonged dissent or protest, there cannot be continued occupation of public places affecting the rights of others,” it had said.

“We have considered the earlier judicial pronouncements and recorded our opinion that the Constitutional scheme comes with a right to protest and express dissent but with an obligation to have certain duties,” it had said.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.